Relish the adult discourse around the Labour Party leadership election… September 27, 2010

Sound advice, but wait, what’s this in the Observer from the previous day as part of a broader piece on the bros. M?

Sibling rivalry
Rivalry is often seen as central to sibling relationships. Sibling pairs in literature and the media almost always reflect this negative view, vying for affection and admiration— in the bible, for instance, Esau steals his brother’s birthright and Cain, consumed with jealousy, murders his brother Abel. Psychoanalysts claim that we must constantly struggle against murderous feelings towards our nearest and dearestthose closest to us.
Yet scientific research suggests otherwise. It is more common for siblings to play up their differences. If one is good at spelling and the other not, they are likely to view themselves as the practical one and the academic one, rather than good and no good. This relieves the tension and helps each to respect differences.
Competition is more likely to occur between siblings of the same sex who are close in age. What happens if, as with the Milibands, the younger brother overtakes the older? Mythology would have us believe that this spells doom. But there’s no rule that says that later-born siblings should be less successful. On the contrary, it’s often a closely run race.
In most cases, in most families,competition between siblings will enable rich and mutually beneficial relationships — not murder.

Yeah, not murder…

FFS.

Meanwhile, I have no real sense of Ed Miliband’s politics, but this, this I like…

• He said he was opposed to cuts in universal benefits. “I’m all for speaking hard truths. I don’t personally think undermining the universal welfare state is the right thing to do,” he said. This was in response to a question about cutting child benefit payments to middle-class families.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

However I fear the manner of his election may undermine him in the end. And its not the sibling rivalry thing I have in mind, more the fact that he failed to win a plurality of votes in the two most important constituencies of the Labour electoral college. The unions may sign the cheques, but in the end its the party activists and MPs that win elections.

I’m sure it’s been noted, but I couldn’t help but be struck by the ghost (not) at the feast…where was Mr. Tony? Incredible that the most electorally successful Labour PM ever couldn’t show up to his own party conference a mere three years after leaving office. Or was he there as an ordinary delegate to move Composite Motion No. 541 (B) (Amended), calling on the conference to oppose any move to change subsection 3:2 (Article b, para 4) (previously amended)of the parties constitution as it would represent a betrayal of all we have stood for, brothers, right back to the time of Peterloo, not half a mile from where we are now…. (Applause)(Jack Jones stubs out cigarette and rises to his feet)

There’s a bit in the Guardian about Labour women demanding he makes good a promise of gender equality in the cabinet. This might just happen – his strategy may be to contrast with the all-male ConDem cabinet.

Harriet Harman was making the good point that this has left the Tories tone-deaf to issues that directly effect half of the population most starkly. 75% of the recent ConDem cuts hit women more than men.

Re Harriet and the Milibands, the bit in this report, towards the 4 minute mark, where HH applauds Ed for condemning the Iraq war and David turns to her and asks ‘why are you clapping, you supported it’ is worth a look..

I was in London for the last few days and Labour-supporting friends were unanimously anyone-but-David. Not very scientific polling, but interesting how much they saw him in the same kind of light as Blair and Mandelson.